Comments by phasmagigas

Comment #71864 by phasmagigas on September 19, 2007 at 7:50 pm

well, there was a few words of reason spoken at the very end. 'that reminds me of al quaida'

Comment #71859 by phasmagigas on September 19, 2007 at 7:35 pm

I got the impression that Joy (the one next to Whoopi) was completely in a different league than the others. She was trying to point out how a number of the Republican candidates don't think evolution is true and implied that is a problem. She was not too articulate or forceful, but at least she tried to counter the stances of the others.

i wasnt sure which way she was taking the republican candidates non acceptance of evo, I thought at first she was using that as someway to give its non acceptance credibility! it was probably the other way around though.

953. God Talk on 'The View'

Comment #71858 by phasmagigas on September 19, 2007 at 7:30 pm

quite incredible. even the two most reasonable people seem very unsure of the issues (and thats not a bad thing, just that they are on TV discussing science). village idiots can now get on TV. I though whoopie was supposed to be atheist??

audience: women aged 20-55, take prozac, see mediums, read horoscope, believe in gaaaawd.

954. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71841 by phasmagigas on September 19, 2007 at 6:43 pm

hobbit:

After doing this, the next step of admitting that you may actually be wrong is not as difficult. That is one of the reasons I enjoy coming to this site. I never claim to be an expert on any of the subjects here, but I am happy to put my thoughts out there and have others discuss them. I have found that I have learnt so much from others responses and even more by the references they provide.

But I don't stop there and take them at face value. I have found that I have been inspired to do further independent research to further my knowledge and understanding of things.

hobbit, great points, theres one thing i like and its when I think ive got the right idea about something but then somebody else says 'well its not quite like that' and then shows me why, its so refreshing to get something wrong and then know you are that extra step to the truth (nobody start debating 'truth' if i think ive got cancer on my finger and my doctor says its eczema, then its eczema, unless it really starts going weird).

I wonder if the religious mind is primarily a mind that cannot handle being shown to be wrong (of course it isnt that cut and dry but maybe there is an element of that), that whole cognitive dissonance is quite interesting.

a mutual aquaintence of my wife and i goes to mediums, I told here about cold reading and lies and general skullduggery involved and she just kind of smiled this big silly smile and didnt take heed to anything i said. odd really, considering the medium had told her nothing that anybody could have told her! oh, and yes, she is religious.

955. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71835 by phasmagigas on September 19, 2007 at 6:28 pm

hobbit.

This can also be used to explain the formation of oil, gas and coal (which are called fossil fuels for a reason). These can not be found by random drilling or digging. Modern science uses very specific techniques and analysis to increase the probability of finding oil, gas and coal at any given site.

i mentioned that fossils are random in my post, that was in relation to say any individual creature and how/when they get exposed. As you say the process insnt random as such but for all intents and purposes for any given individual creature the chances of being fossilised could be considered random. hope that clears up any notion of evolutionists not getting their stories straight.

956. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71833 by phasmagigas on September 19, 2007 at 6:24 pm

steve99

I hope I am not seeming like I am ignoring your posts... I take a while to post and sometimes a thread has moved on a bit, and others have already made the same points!

no totally not, there are several people doing that and the great thing is that at least our arguments tend to concur, that HAS to be a good sign, the theistic arguments tend to ,err, vary, quite a bit from theist to theist, im not sure what that means (and its not even us who have been reading the same book!!!!).

957. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71831 by phasmagigas on September 19, 2007 at 6:21 pm

re 'the flood' jees, just thinking about that makes my head hurt.

The space, the variable temperature rooms (they had AC back then?), the photoperiod thing (you know for equitorial/northern/southern organisms) the meat supplies (maybe more than 2 zebras were needed for tose lions then), the very particular plants for those fussy herbivores, all that poop, urea, guano, dead skin, hairs, what about fighting t rex and those dimetrodons, and trying to locate those insects in the first place, and trying to differentiate 2 very similar beetle species only 2mm long, wow, quite a feat. yes, the millions of tonnes of meat and plant material needed every day, thats quite a mucking out of the stables i'll tell you.

I think the flood was invented to give the reductio ad absurdum argument a really good example.

958. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71824 by phasmagigas on September 19, 2007 at 6:11 pm

steve99,

thanks for adding the extras, i tend to make general commments but you give specific examples which are really useful. the more the merrier!

959. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71819 by phasmagigas on September 19, 2007 at 6:00 pm

How do you know that the archaeopteryx was not simply an entirely different species itself that has become extinct. You see half this and half that because you WANT to see it.

Oh, and I can foresee that these lines of mutating creatures carried forward by natural selection will never be seen because they don't exist.

These examples that so many of you have given tell me nothing. They are isolated and random. They are not a scientific process that applies to all. These strange examples are just that- strange. There should be millions of examples of these things in the fossil record. They should literally be everywhere- and they should still be occurring right now. They are not everywhere because they don't happen except in freaks of nature- which never survive.

archaeopteryx was indeed and entirely different species that has become extinct, just like the vast majority of all species that ever lived, it almost certainly is NOT the ancestor to modern birds.

i dont see half this and that atall, I see animals with transitional stages and so do all professional palaenotologists (im not one of those im just saying that they at least DO know what they are talking about)

these lines of mutating creatures (of which you are one of them revcort)as you put them (its not them that mutate but the DNA in their gonads) will have had offspring (if lucky) but I agree its VERY unlikely that any of them will have living descendants today, just like its VERY unlikely that you will have living descendants in 65 million years too. what you are seeing are very ancient second/third/fourth etc cousins if you will, a bit like seeing a photo of your great aunt but knowing full well she is not your direct ancestor but you still share some common traits, you know like nose shape etc.

the examples are isolated and random as thats what the fossil record is like, try putting a dead chicken in your garden and see if its gets fossilised, its more likely to be animal poop within 48 hours. the most interesting incomplete jigsaw puzzle known.

strange examples, i would agree, all life can be strange, an alien visiting this planest would see a dog as strange, but no stranger than a small dinosaur or a praying mantis, you are displaying lack of imagination again, indeed even we might appear strange, we are by ape standards quite an abberation.

oh and finally there ARE millions of examples of these strange creatures in the fossil record (as rare as fossils compared to the number of organisms that have lived are there are still lots of them), every creature is an intermediate genetically to its ancestors and its descendants (if it has any, its a given it has ancestors) if the creature doesnt quite fit in with the species alive today you call it 'strange', if you want strange you want to check out the burgess shales or even just a common or garden rock pool.

'freaks of nature', well im not going to comment on that phrase as im not sure what it means.

revcort, you really need to get your biology up to scratch before discussing it here.

960. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #71803 by phasmagigas on September 19, 2007 at 5:33 pm

I know that Dawkins in his TGD argues that the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis and hence falsifiable by science

does dawkins really say that?? id be very suprised if dawkins says that god is falsifiable, there NOT being a god is falsifiable.

Even something as extreme and as stupid as young Earth creationism would work, as science cannot possibly verify that a six day divine creation of our universe at about 4004 BCE did not take place.

is that because its unfalsifiable (god made the layout of rocks and radiometric dating evidence to seem like its older). On what basis is YEC extreme and stupid, many treat it as 'gospel'.

961. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71796 by phasmagigas on September 19, 2007 at 5:05 pm

archaeopteryx is oft quoted as the reptile/bird intermediate, of course it is technically correct, but only in a VERY unspecific way, you could also say that its an intermediate between a snake and a bird if you see my point (the reptile clade includes a lot of groups)

I wonder just how close it is to modern birds compared to all those other very cool feathered therapods, I guess its small size and general 'birdiness' make it seem close to the bird ancestors but you can bet there are some other larger and more monstrous creatures yet to be found that are actually closer to birds.

palaeontolgy is very exciting, i always like to imagine just what INFORMATION is literally out there to be dug up, i can foresee a time when really nice fossil lineages (better than we have now, i hope excavation is faster than erosion)showing transitional features (and really quite close to actual ancestral lineages) will be on display in museums, I can also foresee creationists STILL complaining that there are still gaps (well of course there are dummy, do you have your great great grandma propped up in the basement next to your great grandma??)

962. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71791 by phasmagigas on September 19, 2007 at 4:48 pm

Hey Revcort, have you accepted homosexuality as natural yet? Or are you being dishonest and ignoring the evidence because your faith tells you to?

actually one wonders where homosexuality begins and sinless sex ends, think of the kinsey scale (as a fairly blunt measurement) but then think of all the tiny increments from one end of the scale to the other, think of the christian father with wife and kids who had a quick grope with his best mate at the tender age of 13, whats to become of him, is he sinful?? think of those papuan culture/s where boys fellate the men, is that sinful, are they full of sin too? I suppose men like Ted haggard could answer some of these questions better than others (im not being facetious, if ted is bisexual, power to him, he just needs to work on it a bit, but cut the hypocritical bits very firmly out, very firmly out indeed, then he might not be considered a number one candidate for the village stocks.

963. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71783 by phasmagigas on September 19, 2007 at 4:24 pm

steve99

You are assuming that the organisms will only work in conjunction. This is the case for many, however, we see plenty of examples of different stages of symbiosis where the organisms are less dependent. Perhaps you have a garden? Well, the soil is full of fungi, a large number of which are symbiotic with green plants. Some of these fungi act as an extended root system for the plants, increading water update. In return, the fungi get nutrients from the plant. However, in some conditions this symbiosis is not vital. For example, when the plants have access to plenty of water. But, when water is scarce, the symbiosis is vital (at least for the plants), as they need the water-uptake capabilities of the fungi.

So we can see just how such partnerships evolve.

You see, the best approach to science is this area is not to sit back and claim that things are impossible, never happen, or require 'faith'. All it takes is a little humility, enough to ask those who know about these subject to explain things, and you will get clear answers.

sweet answers.

if im not mistaken most plants in the wild actually have a fungi/root relationship. there are probably many, many plants that are common garden and house plants and do fine despite the lack of their 'intended' partners!! biology rules

964. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71770 by phasmagigas on September 19, 2007 at 3:47 pm

Saying that micro will produce macro over millions of years sounds great, but it is unprovable- requiring faith

funny how the faithful start throwing around the word 'faith' (ignoring its context here) like its a dirty word, a bit like when saying atheism is 'just' another type of religion.

965. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71766 by phasmagigas on September 19, 2007 at 3:42 pm

And what about symbiosis? Two organisms which live off of one another or two parts which work only in conjunction- how do you explain how they evolved this way? Which came first and how did it survive prior to the other?

which came first?? the organisms now symbiotic 'met' at the same time as independant organisms and over time became more and more mutually dependant. i can bet there are literally 1000's of papers on this stuff (from orchids/bees to sharks and wrasses), a MASSIVE and deliberate lack of imagination required to find sybiosis as evidence against evolution (ie how did it come about otherwise).

i found a spider in my pitcher plant (an otherwise invertebrateivorous plant), as i am 100's of miles from known pitcher plants in the wild I must assume that its in there clinging to the 'slippery' interior by chance! its even grabbing insects that fall in. now my imagination runs wild and I can see that this spider could theoretically breed in here and it (its kind) could over time become so specialised a spider that as its so protected from sunlight and predators within the plant it could become pale and quite docile (well by a spiders definition) as it would be wasteful to produce pigment and strong muscles for running etc, in time it could become the pitcher spider, a pale slow but very good at clinging onto the inside of pitchers type of spider, but has become dependant on its plant home, OK so not symbiotic but this is the type of simple imagination i feel creationsts lack.

symbiosis experts please give some evolutionary explanations to revcort.

966. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71759 by phasmagigas on September 19, 2007 at 3:27 pm

Now, I have no problem believing that Darwin saw 13 or 14 different types of finches on the Galapagos Islands, but what I still haven't seen is a half-lizard, half-bird in the fossil record.

ive seen a picture of a half crodile half duck on some creationist video. actually nobody has seen a half bird half lizard fossil either. what you find are therapod dinosaurs with transitional features aligning them to birds, none of them will be bird ancestors (very unlikely) but they are very distant second cousins so to speak, can some vertebrate palaeontologists get on here and explain to revcort that 'half' creatures dont exist, well not in te way they want them to (they can be found in butcher shops, but more like 1/32th creatures), any creature that leaves descendants is an intermediate between its ancestors and its descendants.

967. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71722 by phasmagigas on September 19, 2007 at 2:33 pm

revcort:

I believe we are all predisposed to certain weaknesses and temptations, but that does not excuse the sin involved in taking those actions. Homosexuality is obviously sinful- it is a crime against nature itself, wouldn't you agree? Do you know of any homosexual animals? (that are not trained that way by some wacko) Even nature tells us that if a man and a man mate, there is no reproduction

its will be an overall improvement in our lot when phrases like 'homosexuality is a sin' become as redundant, as offensive as say 'jews are infidels' and in this case you can choose to be a jew, theres nothing inherent about anybody that makes them jewish. Although now i think about it, the word sin applied to homosexuality is more preferable than having ones head removed because of it, go revcort you liberal you. maybe you could join westboro baptists and their placards, anything but those awful beheadings!!

oh and another thing, men and men dont mate, well not as such. anyway did the bible not say something about 'lie with another man'?? so in literal terms standing 'mating' is allowed???

968. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71441 by phasmagigas on September 18, 2007 at 7:27 pm

baeoz. interesting. im a brit living in the USA and have not yet had a hospital experience here, i dont seem to recall religion being asked for in the UK. I must admit id be a bit annoyed though if i was incapacitated and they called in a priest (by default) as id prefer it if they made room for one more doctor and one less priest.

969. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71439 by phasmagigas on September 18, 2007 at 7:19 pm

baeoz:

They asked what religion I was when I was quickly admitted, I'm proud to say I replied "none"

why were you asked that??

970. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71431 by phasmagigas on September 18, 2007 at 6:56 pm

revcort.

#1 The Scripture NEVER gives a date or even a number of years as a timetable for Christ's return. The words that are used are "soon" and "quickly." Now, to the Apostles, they may well have thought He would return in their own lifetimes. But Peter says that "with the Lord a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years a day." (2 Peter 3:8) So, in God's estimation of time, it's been only about 2 days.

so does that mean the earth might be actually as old as 6 million years according to the bible or even as young as 6 years?? so maybe we ARE in the matrix. or maybe im missing some fundamental point as im not really up on my bible studies.

So, God's reason for delaying His return is clear. He delays so that ALL those who are to be saved will have an opportunity to be born, hear the Gospel, and be regenerated

or maybe its so that ALL those who arent to be saved will have the opportunity to be born, ignore the gospel and be sent to hell.

im not sure if i'm being serious as im not quite sure if revcort is either.

971. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71035 by phasmagigas on September 17, 2007 at 3:33 pm

ultrvioletG

When referring to what Atheists (don't) believe, it might help monotheists bypass their emotional reflex, and understand your point better, by saying that Atheists don't believe in gods. Saying "God" triggers an automatic response. Saying "gods" is both more accurate and less emotional

this is an interesting 'tactic', firstly it would throw a rabid believer offguard, they would also find themselves agreeing with you regarding the X-1 (X=total mumber of gods believed in across history) number of gods that they also dont believe in. You just have to get to the hard part when you tell them you also dont believe in the extra one they do. You could say something like 'i dont even believe in mercury' just to 'help' them see the sillyness of their position.

972. The Dawkins debate

Comment #70628 by phasmagigas on September 16, 2007 at 11:04 am

to blazing arrow 74

I don't think I understand what you mean phasmagigas ... May you please clarify ? ... Are you saying subjects like that are brought-up so they may be deemed irrelevant ? ...

blazingarrow74. I was suggesting that we start to waste our time continually debating if we are (for example) descended from a common ancestor with chimps (as our most recent extant relative) or having to show fossils showing intermediate traits, these things are worth showing of course but again its akin to the aircraft designer having to reiterate and show what he/she knows about lift 'theory' in order to gain acceptance by people (in general)regarding the flying capability of a plane. you dont see lift being continually being debated in public forums or in politics despite the fact people could easily believe that its the hand of god carrying the plane up and over the sea (that wasnt in the bible of course so it never came to be questioned). anyway, of course they are worth answering, 'why are there no intermediate fossils' as such but they have been answered continually, and if somebody asked me that question id be happy to give them an answer.

edit. blazing arrow 74, ok, i think i see whay you were confused, i seem to have been reading the original article and kind of tied it to my post with andother quote and it all went pear shaped. ANYWAY. my point was more relating to the original post, ie the list of comments on TGD, many relating to evolution show that the posters have little to no understanding of the process which leaves biologists to continually have to explain the basics (and maybe thats good reason to try and expalin the basics continually, it obviously didnt work in schools.)

973. The Dawkins debate

Comment #70624 by phasmagigas on September 16, 2007 at 10:49 am

"Nothing" lacks an observer to ask this question

ive often wondered about that 'nothing' thing, maybe there just IS something and nothing is a silly notion, just a figment of our imagination.

974. The Dawkins debate

Comment #70610 by phasmagigas on September 16, 2007 at 9:50 am

I actually find the argument that God must exist because, "What caused the big bang?" to be particularly weak - akin to Newton postulating that a divine force must hold together the solar system because he couldn't solve his gravitational equations for more than two bodies.

(edited for some weird grammar)I think many people when considering these more fundamental questions to our ultimate cosmic origins dont necessarily ascribe anything to a god (its just taht they are more unknown)but more its to push out those ideas that really dont need discussing anymore (and they are often arguments against non belief), time is wasted with things like 'why are there no intermediate fossils then?' it would be like having a plane designer having to explain the exact details of lift etc every time somebody says 'i just cant believe those things get off the ground' prior to the first test flight.

edit, whoops i seem to have thrown in the wrong quote and now my post isnt really relating to the quote.........next time.

975. The Dawkins debate

Comment #70585 by phasmagigas on September 16, 2007 at 7:04 am

from dancingthemantaray

interestingly we seem only to be discussing the weaker points..I actually quite like the point about space and time being created by the big bang therefore whatever caused the big bang is outside of space and time...if only more theists argued like that- think of the interesting debates to be had!!

instead of:

Dawkins seems to be getting more desperate by the day. I think "The God Delusion" will turn out to be a giant own goal for him. In choosing to attack God Dawkins as shown to himself to be intolerant, blinkered,nasty and always breathtakenly arrogant. I hope he finds salvation in Jesus Christ before it is too late. Secular fundamentalism will certainly fail."

"The living cell is complex structure that includes so many interactive dimensions that to believe these all came together by chance is so improable that even the most inteligent scientist looks like a buffoon if he/she expects us to believe such hypothetical nonsence. That these cells then gathered together ,and witrh no fore plan, designed the amoeba, let alone the human being is so outrageously obsurd that one must doubt the sanity of those that believe in this nonsense."

agreed, would make for far more interesting and time wasting debates, i mean according to this guy (the last quote) some cells designed the amoeba!!!

although of course he is TOTALLY RIGHT about this bit, and no evo biologist disagrees:

"The living cell is complex structure that includes so many interactive dimensions that to believe these all came together by chance is so improable that even the most inteligent scientist looks like a buffoon if he/she expects us to believe such hypothetical nonsence.

of course thats the problem, most people dont have a clue what evolution entails (or miss the point when its stares them in the face) why is it tyat people feel they are biology experts but not say in aircraft engineering???

976. The Dawkins debate

Comment #70581 by phasmagigas on September 16, 2007 at 6:42 am

Ok, i wont make any more posts on peoples posts as its quite boring and wed be here all month. last one.

quote"

"I suspect that Richard Dawkins would still dismiss the beliefs and experiences of billions of thinking people even if Jesus appeared in person and performed miracles just for him. This is inconsistent with being open-minded and open to scientific enquiry and intelligent debate. Curiously, the evidence shows that whilst Dawkins might hate God, God loves Dawkins."

endquote.

if jesus appeared and waved his hand over an amputee stump and it grew back there and then or indeed he managed to eradicate a scar with the wave of a hand, i think I and RD would accept that was a miracle, the thing is, its just NOT going to happen is it???? its the type of thing non believers are 'waiting' for.

what an idiot that poster is.

977. The Dawkins debate

Comment #70578 by phasmagigas on September 16, 2007 at 6:36 am

"Richard Dawkins IS a fundamentalist- pure and simple. And yes, he does shrill, rage and spew hatred. No better or worse than the average human. The difference between a Christian fundamentalist and a Dawkin fundamentalist is that the former says "God knows best", while the latter says "I know best".

This brings up the question- which Charles Darwin considered- as Dawkins is an evolved monkey (true evolution), how much faith should one place in the judgment of a monkey's brain?

I rest my case."

so should I trust a human brain or one (gods brain) that another human brain imagines is there?? so am i trusting gods brain (so to speak) or that of the person who believes in the non apparent brain.

and as for trusting the evolved monkey, well thats a curious argument for monkey or not we trust other people every day of our lives (well most of us do). So is this an argument against evolution 'how can we trust a monkey, see evolution didnt happen!!' or just a silly argument against a particular evolved monkey (dawkins), and then its just even sillier as if the poster thinks hes NOT an evolved monkey, than he is therefor trustworthy as he was made in gods image right??

in a nutshell, whatever dawkins is then so is the poster, so should i even trust the poster!!

sorry, when i read something full of it i have to exercise my limited powers of weak argument breakdown as best i can.

978. Review of Darwin's Angel

Comment #70202 by phasmagigas on September 14, 2007 at 10:16 am

stanford is taking the piss yes??

'Cornwell does, however, start to get sucked in to Dawkins's fact-based approach'

SUCKED in?, like its something bad.

'for it simply isn't about facts'Religion fails utterly this test'

agreed.

' Cornwell has done an excellent job in providing a book that should, in an ideal world, be sold taped to every copy of The God Delusion as an essential corrective.'

corrective??? and this being composed the following:'It is an intuition, a sense of something more than meets the eye, a glimpse of transcendence, of a higher purpose, but nothing more tangible'

ie BS.

this write up is a piss take, it has to be.

979. Mind Over Manual

Comment #70010 by phasmagigas on September 13, 2007 at 4:23 pm

i suppose its all abit like trying to decide if a man who is 5' 4" is short, medium or tall or indeed somewhere inbetween. I also suppose the word 'illness' itself is a very fuzzy area in psychiatry. You get rabies, you've got an illness, you have manic depression but father 10 well turned out kids and have a great career and have lots of friends then the fuzzy starts to appear(ok so you could have all the above and then get rabies, but you get my point??)

980. Griffin's 'offensive' Emmy speech to be censored

Comment #69562 by phasmagigas on September 11, 2007 at 5:50 pm

so Bill Donahue doesnt like what she said, and this is the same man who said to hitchens 'when the irish (yeah right)man is speaking the englishman must listen'. Of couse griffin ist going to mention mohammed (as BD dared her to)as people dont mention mohammed for emmies to often so in the same token i wonder if BD says 'when the irishman is talking the mexican man must listen'. Oh and then maybe he'd like her to step outside too (as he asked with hitch). one for the village stocks.

981. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69558 by phasmagigas on September 11, 2007 at 5:37 pm

on the cretaceous extinction, intelligence such as our own seems to have evolved only once so far, possibly we did away with our cousin species (whenever they were) with similar intelligences. seems the dinos are still here as birds and none of those are building planes yet, then again, then dont need to!! interestingly birds flew and roamed new zealand for about 80 my with no mammalian interference and still no planes (for the moas).

982. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #68728 by phasmagigas on September 8, 2007 at 10:15 am

quote "The 'flea' thing is also nonsense. The term flea seems to indicate a responder. Seeing as all athiesm is a response, surely RD et al are the real fleas."

then the theist follow uppers are amoebas on fleas.

983. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #68686 by phasmagigas on September 8, 2007 at 6:20 am

after reading some of the comments on this thread it highlights one of the qualities of a good teacher like RD (amongst many). That quality is noticing mistakes/gaps in knowledge/misconceptions whatever you want to call them and explaining to the 'student' the reason why they have it wrong with an informed explanation (i dont want to go into the mataphysics of true/false as thats going on at incredibly painful length in the alistair mcgrath thread and im interested bread and butter reality for now). ive seen dawkings asked the most ridiculous questions but he never belittles the asker.

984. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #68678 by phasmagigas on September 8, 2007 at 5:38 am

the book by thomas crean. If he had been born in iran, i wonder if his book would have been called 'A muslim replies'?

985. The smallest signs of retreat

Comment #68553 by phasmagigas on September 7, 2007 at 3:10 pm

"quote We live in a crowded planet and bump into diversity in a way that no previous generation have ever done to the same extent: we have to increase our imaginations to grasp the enormous variety of human experience. Narrow certainties - wherever they come from - have unprecedented capacity to generate destruction."

i'll agree, the people sat on the london bus that exploded got a rather rude 'bump into diversity'.

OK as small as that risk is I get sick of hearing these apologists remarks, the overall tone is something like 'dawkins just SHOULDNT be saying this stuff about religion'. Its almost like writing a book on atheism 'feels' like it should be criminal.

986. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #66992 by phasmagigas on September 1, 2007 at 8:57 am

sometimes i wonder why anybody should bother commenting on a 'review' like this, its so self evidently flawed that nobody could take it seriously, could they?

thats the thing isnt it, unless there are comments which expose the nonsense within, there are many, many people who would read it and come away thinking 'oh that dawkins, what a nasty man, saying things about god' instead of saying 'thats strange, i thought this was a review about a book and not an attack on the author of another' (and similar has been posted previously).

Anyway upon a poster pointing out this bit which i'd skimmed over:

"Religion as disease, and more pertinently, the religiously inclined as disease-carriers, this is dangerous talk. Dawkins might try substituting "Jews" or "blacks" for "religiously inclined" and he would see why. "

i can now say with confidence that sally is an idiot. It is very annoying when people seem to deliberately? confuse race/ethnicity and religion. They dont see that one is in the genes and one is in the memes.

on a general note, my wife this morning was wondering why on earth i post on sites like this, and I said the following (which may be borrowed from hitchens) 'because next time you take your shoes off for an inspection at the airport think about why you have to do it'.

987. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #66958 by phasmagigas on September 1, 2007 at 5:38 am

i looked at the original article, that picture at the top, is that darwin or Cornwell!!!

Why the hell would a review of a review of TGD have a picture of darwin?? sally is the one who says that the creation is for nutters, so darwin is there (is that darwin???or maybe socrates, i dont know)because she supports evolution or is he there because she doesnt in which case where does she feel that life came from????? im confused, but less so than sally.

"distinguished between the fact of fact and the fact of fiction, a distinction that escapes Dawkins, who appears to have no concept of the "reality" of a thought, and only a very immature concept of the "reality" of a play, novel or poem. (As I used to ask students, is Hamlet real?)"

the whole piece is so flawed on every level that I am in a state of dis-belief, sally, i think we need to substitute the 'a' for an 'i'.

988. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #66955 by phasmagigas on September 1, 2007 at 5:08 am

"Not that any of this is likely to alter the minds of the antiGod squad. They "know" they are right"

downright offensive, I know of no atheist who 'knows' they are right and that includes me, the only people who i know who 'know' they are right are of course religious people.

"Those who think that not knowing is safer and more attractive than its opposite should treat themselves to this elegant little book."

and that is sheer arrogance, what the hell does she mean by safer? that we are pretending that we arent going to hell. give me strength.

989. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #66954 by phasmagigas on September 1, 2007 at 5:06 am

"His account of the Bible is equally undiscriminating. For a start, only religious nutcases take the Creation story literally"

sally isnt realising that most who accept creation are not ken ham type nutters, they are probably on every school board in the US.

990. A Daddy Longlegs Tells the Story of the Continents' Big Shifts

Comment #66743 by phasmagigas on August 31, 2007 at 7:44 am

fascinating.

its amazing to think then that the florida mite harvestman and its west african relatives have remained 'similar' for 170 my or so, well to the extent that they are still easy to recognise as mite harvestmen, i suppose creationists might say something like 'see they didnt evolve much did they??' when you compare our common ancestor with a whale (pluse all the others in the clade)at the 170 mya mark (im not sure what we were back then, were we still 'with' whales??) great changes have occured.

BUT thats the point as we have a bias towards noticing differences in humans/mammals/land tetrapods we miss the difference in inverts that maywell really be there, a man may be very different from mouse, but a bugs eye view may see two rather similar creatures, rather like a person may compare a dragonfly to a damselfly. so my point from the first it is that even though the two mite harvestmen have been separated for 170my and seem similar maybe they truly are as different as a man and an echidna, or are they??? i wonder how one can measure amount of difference?? morphology?? genetic difference could be better and does that always coincide with morphological differences. ITs funny but we can recognise all the people we know but the layperson will see a spider or a fly and scream BUG!! i wonder for eg is a man and a lizard more or less similar than a spider is to a scorpion or a fern is to a daisy, actually i'll hazard a guess that its the fern and daisy that are most dissimilar.

991. Christopher Hitchens and Bill Donohue on Mother Teresa

Comment #66509 by phasmagigas on August 30, 2007 at 7:13 am

im so glad hitchens ignored the engishman/irishman comments. Its interesting how had the englishman been replaced by practically any other nationality bill would now be splattered all over the national newspapers and being forced to eat very humble pie and maybe even being charged with some type of offence.

Imagine it: when an Irishman is speaking the Africanman must listen (according to his logic black americans must be African)

when an Irishman is speakingh the Mexicanman must listen.

when an irishman is speaking the Italianman must listen.

Good job that hitchens is english/now american (well at least bill was being consistent although hitch has a pretty good reason to still be called english) as billy would now be in BIG trouble. He has that nationalistic streak that causes hatred worldwide. An embarrasment.

992. There is no God and Dawkins is his Prophet

Comment #66506 by phasmagigas on August 30, 2007 at 6:47 am

the whole god is the reason for its own existence, thats a bit like searching for google on google and shouting, 'see, google!!' Now if a 4 year old did that you might say 'yes, darling, google' but for anybody older you might just start to worry.

993. Christopher Hitchens and Bill Donohue on Mother Teresa

Comment #66494 by phasmagigas on August 30, 2007 at 6:09 am

blockquote/blockquote

the phelps woman takes that to another level.

ah crap, i cant remember how to blockquote!! anyway this was regarding the religious persons penchant for smiling horribly!

994. There is no God and Dawkins is his Prophet

Comment #66337 by phasmagigas on August 29, 2007 at 5:59 pm

the fairy that lives in the bottom of my carnivorous pitcher plant also created itself, quite astonishing so i need not ponder how it came to be anymore.

995. Christopher Hitchens and Bill Donohue on Mother Teresa

Comment #66335 by phasmagigas on August 29, 2007 at 5:56 pm

Irishman?? he sounds like no Irishman ive ever heard. He figures by saying that that every person in the USA with any degree of irish ancestry will take him seriously. Can you imagine anybody of any other nationality saying that and not causing a riot.

aside, what have any of Bills comments got to do with MT's apparent lack of belief?? One of the most desperate rants off topic ive ever heard.

996. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #66051 by phasmagigas on August 28, 2007 at 5:32 am

this thread isnt getting ME anywhere, im almost afraid to ask my wife if she wants a sandwich later in case she replies 'darling, i'll let you know when you define exactly what you mean by 'sandwich' and 'later'.

the good thing is that should i ever be the victim of a double leg 'amputation' I will be able to convince myself that the notion of being legless is merely a viewpoint, a subjective notion and the fact i cannot seem to ambulate is through my own willingness to not get up for years on end as my legs will really still be there.

997. Fallen Pastor Seeks Aid to Pursue Studies

Comment #66047 by phasmagigas on August 28, 2007 at 4:54 am

After watching peter fisher at the royal homeopathic hospital on part two of 'enemies of reason' I noticed some similarities between him and haggard.

OK the video style of interview was similar but aside i just got the 'feeling' and thats evidence (as we are good at noticing cues from peoples behaviour, afterall we are the same species and so eveolved to notice the tiniest details of human behaviour and for good reason) that fisher like haggard knew he was pushing BS and primarily for his own good (i guess fisher is in a better financial position than he would be otherwise or maybe he just finds this work MUCH easier).

Fisher suggested that even if it (homeopathy) was proved ineffective he wouldnt stop it as it seemed his patients wanted it. Like with haggard the masses that follow them would continue to follow despite any amount of evidence against (homeopathy) or any amount of 'sin' (haggard). I'm guessing the difference is that the homeopathic hospital treatment is on the NHS, ie free.

I still laugh at one of haggards videos, the one where he looks in the camera and says something like 'i know where you were last night' (In reference to some guy whos been engaging in homosexual activity, the audience smugly laughs) and of course ted knew because he was right in the thick of it. One for the village stocks. edit, ah, the said video post 66045, yes, one for the village stocks. Id like to pose one question to haggard: 'Ted, are you going to hell??' Well at least westboro baptists dont care for him either.

998. Poll: Which religion do you associate with?

Comment #65553 by phasmagigas on August 24, 2007 at 7:13 pm

lets assume that the poll shows atheists at 69%.
what might some christians (yes, christians) say? something like:

'as its not scientific it doesnt mean anything'.

if the christian vote had hit 69% they might have said something like:

'we dont need science anyway we have faith so this 69% is pretty good!!'

999. Good luck, Dawkins!

Comment #63857 by phasmagigas on August 16, 2007 at 12:49 pm

re sane1's points.

I have noticed here in the US that get a group of corporate guys together and they will talk confidently about the technicalities of their job processes, and then the same guys will happily got to church on a sunday, i just dont get them. i single out the US as that happens far less often in the UK, i notice co workers in the UK if not actually in work will be talking about anything but work!! oh and then of course they are far less likely to go to church too.

aside from all this, i do enjoy some supernatural influences. I tend to like period ghost stories, and i enjoyed hp lovecraft too, although the 'gods' in those stories seemed to be purely natural alien entities. When I read a good ghost story i put myself in the shoes of the characters who 150 years ago wouldnt have knows a ghost from a draught so I enjoy their scares!

oh, we seem to be all in italics, spooky, maybe the prayers mentioned in pharyngulas site are taking effect!!

1000. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63843 by phasmagigas on August 16, 2007 at 12:02 pm

I think Darwin2 has distracted us from the important comments to made here -- begun by RickM -- namely, the surprise we Americans are experiencing at how bad music is on British radio...

the brits have an uncanny knack of getting the very worst music played everywhere, the fact that it is a single small island perhaps means that bad music memes spread very quickly, things like the 'crazy frog' (i think its 'the annoying thing' in the USA?)phone tune and too many childish techno tunes invade the airwaves constantly. Our saving grace is our TV (well it used to be), it IS better than US tv which i personally find unbearable, well there are some good programmes but its the overall repetitive style, standing clapping audiences, voice overs that sound like every programme is going to be an epic, awful.